This <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4U4r_AgJU&feature=youtu.be> is a
great talk on designing PLs, by Brian Kernighan in which he describes (too)
how Perl stops being relevant by providing too little, too late.
Again, improvements can be made in term of things other than just the
syntax or semantics - while it is a possibility.
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:47:22 PM UTC+3:30, dc0d wrote:
> Why does it have to be a breaking change? And there are other things too
> that are equally - if not more - important to me (the provided link to the
> The success of Go in the field of application development (besides it's
> success in the devops and infrastructure sector) was unexpected - as Rob
> Pike himself stated, they expected to attract C and C++ developers and
> instead they've got developers from Python and .NET and other PLs that are
> mostly used for application development.
> Having that in mind, Go must adopt. It does not have to be an adoption in
> terms of syntax. It might at some point. But - in my experience - the far
> more important factors that can affect this and push the adoption further,
> are 1) the expansion of tools and workflow and 2) the cultural roadmaps,
> which if handled in a pragmatic and realistic way, can bear fruit beyond
> initial any anticipation made by now.
> There is something amiss in the current situation with Go. While the Go
> team are doing their best (they are the best after all), other things can
> get improved in far more effective ways by a coherent community which cares
> about quality and staying real to real world problems most.
> On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:25:54 PM UTC+3:30, Doğan Kurt wrote:
>> Generics would divide the Go community.
>> I would probably never use it, like many people who comes to Go from C.
>> People who are already experienced Go programmers also likely to avoid it.
>> Java programmers on the other hand will surely overuse it.
>> There it is, you have two different Go code bases that looks nothing like
>> each others. One uses Generics and the other does not. Nobody wants Go to
>> have the same fate as C++. We love how there is only one way to accomplish
>> something in Go.
>> There are billions of lines of code written in Go. Nobody would happily
>> transform all those working codes just to use new idiomatic Go with
>> generics. I suspect even Go team would hesitate to transform all the
>> standard library.
>> If Go team add generics to Go 2, i am afraid that Go 2 will have the same
>> fate as python 3.
>> Let's hope it never happens.
>> On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM UTC+1, dc0d wrote:
>>> All forms of generics that I would love to have in Go:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.